CrPC Jurisprudence On Discharge & Framing Of Charges Continues Under BNSS : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has observed that the substantive legal standards governing discharge and framing of charges at the pre-trial stage under the Code of Criminal Procedure continue unchanged under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita(BNSS). However, the BNSS introduces regulatory discipline by prescribing sixty-day timelines for filing discharge applications and for courts to frame charges.

“What the BNSS does is to change the procedural setting within which this discretion is exercised. The new statute introduces express timelines for the filing of discharge applications and for the framing of charges, and it expressly recognises the possibility of the accused being heard or examined through electronic means. These changes are regulatory in nature. They are aimed at structuring the process and reducing delay, not at transforming the judicial task itself. The Court's obligation to apply its mind to the record, to hear both sides, and to record reasons where discharge is ordered remains exactly as before, as does the caution against weighing evidence or conducting a mini trial at these preliminary stages.”, observed a bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and N Kotiswar Singh.

The observation came while hearing an appeal against the MP High Court's decision which, while hearing a statutory appeal under Section 14A of SC/ST Act, had upheld the framing of charges under SC/ST Act, despite the basic ingredients of intentional caste-based insult or intimidation remaining absent.

The Court said that the High Court had committed an error in upholding the trial court's decision of charge framing, without applying its mind as an Appellate Court.

"The High Court does not function as a revisional or supervisory Court while exercising jurisdiction under Section 14-A but assumes the role of a first appellate court. A mechanical affirmation of the order of the Special Court, without independent scrutiny, would therefore be inconsistent with settled appellate jurisprudence and would amount to a failure to exercise jurisdiction. Even where the appellate Court ultimately agrees with the reasoning of the Courts below, the judgment must disclose that the material was independently examined.", the court said.

Against this backdrop, the Court underscored that the judicial role at the pre-trial stage under the Cr.P.C. has been carried forward unchanged under the BNSS. Courts are required to frame charges only where they form an opinion that there exists a ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence. Conversely, while considering discharge applications, they must assess whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding in Sessions cases, or whether the charge is groundless in Magistrate warrant cases.

“At the stage of discharge, the Court is required to consider whether there is any sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused in sessions cases, or whether the charge is groundless in Magistrate warrant cases. At the subsequent stage, charges are to be framed only if the Court forms an opinion that there is a ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence. These formulations, which have long anchored the exercise of judicial discretion under the Cr.P.C., are carried forward in substance in the corresponding provisions of the BNSS, without any textual indication that the level of scrutiny is intended to be either heightened or diluted.”, the court observed.

“the established jurisprudence developed under the Cr.P.C. on the scope and limits of consideration at the stages of discharge and framing of charge continues to hold the field under the BNSS. The statutory language supports the conclusion that the Legislature has retained the same substantive balance between the rights of the accused and the interest of prosecution, while seeking to impose greater procedural discipline and expedition. In substance, the power remains the same; only the manner of its exercise has been more tightly structured”, the court held.

Also From Judgment: High Court Must Independently Apply Its Mind On SC/ST Act Charges In Appeal Under Section 14A : Supreme Court

Cause Title: DR. ANAND RAI VERSUS STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 136

Click here to download judgment